September-October 2008 Sego Lily Newsletter, Utah Native Plant Society

8/9/2019 September-October 2008 Sego Lily Newsletter, Utah Native Plant Society

1/12

Sego Lily September 2008 31 (5)

September 2008 Volume 31 Number 5

In this issue:Horseshoe Milkvetch Hides Out in Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1UNPS News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2UNPS Events Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Bulletin Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Will Plants Run Your Car? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Elizabeth Neese (1934-2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Further Weakening of the Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Botanists Bookshelf:A Utah Flora, Fourth Edition, Revised. . . . 10Noteworthy Discoveries fromA Utah Flora, Fourth Edition

(2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Copyright 2008 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved.

Horseshoe MilkvetchHides Out in Colorado

By Tony Frates

As a result of field work over thepast three years, Colorado botanistshave found the globally rare Horse-shoe milkvech in the Gateway areaof Mesa County, Colorado, near theUtah-Colorado border east of Moab.Utah taxonomists have confirmedthe identity of these recent finds.

The milkvetch, first discovered byDrs. Elizabeth Neese and Stanley

Welsh in May of 1979 (and given thenameAstragalus equisolensis by

Welsh and Neese in 1981), was ini-tially thought to be a Uinta Basinendemic found in a 12 square milearea around Horseshoe Bend on theeast side of the Green River south of

Vernal, in Uintah County, Utah.There it is restricted to soils derivedfrom the Duchesne River formationon river terraces and gravel in mixeddesert shrub communities. Thesingle known population in Utah islimited to elevations between 4700to 5200 feet.

The genusAstragalus is an ex-

tremely large and diverse group ofplants in the Pea or Bean family (i.eFabaceae or Leguminosae).Astra-galioccur over much of the North-ern Hemisphere (including placeslike Spain, Iran, and central Asia)and conservatively number over1,600 species (more than 2,000 ifone includes varieties). Over 375species (over 550 counting varieties)occur in North America, mostly inthe western [continued on page 6]

Horseshoe milkvetch (Astragalus equisolensis orA. desperatus var. neeseaedepending on ones taxonomy of choice). Photo by Ellen Mayo, 27 April

2006, inset photo of fruits by Peggy Lyon, 21 May 2008.


2/12

2

Utah Native Plant Society

Officers

Co-Presidents: Bill Gray (Salt Lake Co)and Bill King (Salt Lake Co)Treasurer: Celeste Kennard (Utah Co)Secretary: Mindy Wheeler (Summit

Co)Board Chair: Larry Meyer (Salt Lake

Co)

UNPS Board: Walter Fertig (Kane Co),Robert Fitts (Utah Co), Susan Garvin(Utah Co), Marie Griffiths (Salt LakeCo), Ty Harrison (Salt Lake Co), Char-lene Homan (Salt Lake Co), Kipp Lee(Salt Lake Co), Margaret Malm(Washington Co), Therese Meyer (Salt

Lake Co), Jeff Mitchell (Utah Co), LeilaShultz (Cache Co), Maria Ulloa (SevierCo), Dave Wallace (Cache Co), MaggieWolf (Salt Lake Co), Loreen Woolsten-hulme (Utah Co).

CommitteesCommunications: Larry MeyerConservation: Bill King and Tony

Frates

Education: Ty HarrisonHorticulture: Maggie WolfInvasive Weeds: Susan GarvinRare Plants: Walter Fertig

Chapters and Chapter PresidentsCache: Steve RippleEscalante (Garfield Co): Allysia AngusFremont (Richfield area): Ron Parsons

Manzanita (Kane Co): Walter FertigMountain (Summit Co): MindyWheeler

Price (Carbon Co): Mike HubbardSalt Lake: Kipp LeeSouthern (Washington Co): Margaret

MalmUtah Valley (Utah Co): Celeste Ken-

nard

Website: For late-breaking news, theUNPS store, the Sego Lily archives,Chapter events, links to other websites(including sources of native plants andthe digital Utah Rare Plant Field

Guide), and more, go to unps.org.Many thanks to Xmission forsponsoring our website.

For more information on UNPS:Contact Bill King (582-0432) or SusanGarvin (356-5108), or write to UNPS,PO Box 520041, Salt Lake City, UT,84152-0041 or email [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

do our best to arrange home stayaccommodations for anyone trav-

eling from out of the area.Our venue is the Sugarhouse

Garden Center, 1602 East 2100South, Salt Lake City which hasgood meeting rooms and a largekitchen for heating and preparingfood. Arrive any time from 5:30PM to socialize and help get thingsset up. We expect to start eating

between 6:15 and 6:30.Our speaker for this special oc-

casion will be Dr. Duane Atwood.Duane was one of the founding

members of UNPS and its firstPresident. Over the years he hasmade many contributions to ourunderstanding of Utahs plantsand worked on their behalf. Ear-lier this year he gave a retrospec-tive talk on the early years ofUNPS at the annual Utah RarePlant Conference and was pre-sented with the Societys Lifetime

Achievement Award for his out-standing work (see May issue of

Sego Lily or http://www. unps.org

Sego Lily Editor: Walter Fertig([email protected]). News items, arti-cles, photos, and illustrations frommembers make the editor very happy.The deadline for the November 2008Sego Lily is 25 October 2008.

Copyright 2008 Utah Native PlantSociety. All Rights Reserved

TheSego Lily is a publication of theUtah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3)not-for-profit organization dedicatedto conserving and promoting steward-ship of our native plants. Use of con-tent material is encouraged but re-quires permission (except where ex-empted by statute) and must be cor-rectly credited and cited. Articles,photographs and illustrations submit-ted to us remain the property of thesubmitting individuals or organiza-tions. Submit permission requests [email protected]. We encourage read-

ers to submit articles for potentialpublication. By submitting an article,an implicit license is granted to printthe article in the newsletter or otherUNPS publications for reprint withoutpermission (in print and electronicmedia). When submitting an article,please indicate whether it has beenpreviously published or submitted forconsideration to other publications.

UNPS News

UNPS Annual Members Meet-ing, Friday, November 7,2008: Each year UNPS holds anannual members meeting whichhas traditionally included threemain elements: a New World Pot-luck lunch or supper featuringfoods native to the Americas(classics include turkey, potatoes,tomatoes, yams, blueberries); afeatured speaker who has some-thing important to say about na-

tive plants and UNPS; and a briefbusiness meeting at which themembers elect a Board of Direc-tors for the following year.

In recent years we have cycledamong the three population cen-ters of Utah Valley, Salt Lake, andCache Valley, and it is the SaltLake Chapters turn to host the2008 meeting. This being our30th anniversary we hope that asmany people as possible will makea special effort to attend: we will

/PAGES/news#atwood)To reach Sugarhouse Park from

north or south, take the eastboundI-80 exit from I-15, and exit againat 1300 East (about 2 miles). Pro-ceed north by Sugarhouse Park,turn right on 2100 South. TheGarden Center is located in theextreme northeast corner of thepark with its own parking lot (notaccessible from Sugarhouse Park).For more details or questions,please email or call Bill Gray([email protected], 801-532-3486). -Dave Wallace

30th Anniversary IssueComing in November: Gettinga newsletter together every twomonths can be difficult under ordi-nary circumstances, but is espe-cially challenging during the midstof summer field work and vacationtime. Sothe 30th Anniversaryspecial issue of theSego Lily, com-memorating the history of theUtah Native Plant Society, is beingpostponed to our November issue.


3/12


4/12

4


Will Plants Run Your Car?

By Peter Lesica

Adapted from the Winter 2008 issueofKelseya, newsletter of theMontana Native Plant Society

There is debate in the scientific

community about the role of biofu-els in mankind's future energy sup-plies. At first glance biofuels mightseem like a good idea for solvingdependence on foreign oil, whileproducing lower net greenhousegases than petroleum. Further,large-scale biofuel production prom-ises guaranteed domestic agricul-tural markets. However, there areseveral reasons to be skeptical about

biofuels as an answer to the energyneeds of our country and planet.

Current and future energy de-mands are great, but the efficiencyof biofuel energy production is not.It is estimated that biofuels produce

between 1.3 and 3.2 units of energyfor every unit used. This low effi-ciency means that there will be littlenet gain for the effort expended andlittle reduction in the production ofgreenhouse gases. Recent researchsuggests that nitrous oxide enteringthe atmosphere as a result of usingnitrogen fertilizer to produce biofuelcrops will contribute more to global

warming than the amount saved byusing less fossil fuel. Furthermore,the most efficient crops are thosethat require the best agriculturalland and the most fertilizer. Large-scale biofuel production will alsolikely result in an increase in waterpollution due to increased use offertilizer and pesticides for raisingcrops such as corn and soybeans.They also require significant waterto produce the fuel, frequently sixgallons of water for each gallon of

biofuel produced. Biofuel propo-nents argue that residues from bio-fuel production, such as distilledgrain and soybean meal, can be usedfor livestock feed. However, produc-ing even 10% of current energy de-mand in the U.S. would generatealmost 40 times the livestock feedcurrently used. Clearly the byprod-ucts of large-scale biofuel produc-tion must be considered a serious

waste disposal problem rather thana benefit at this time.

The biggest issue with large-scale biofuel production revolvesaround land. Large tracts of land

will have to be diverted from otherbeneficial uses. Producing fuelfrom crops such as corn, sunflow-ers, and soybeans will divert landfrom food crops with a resultingreduction in food security. Someestimates suggest that providingfuel for one average U.S. automo-

bile for one year would requirethree tons of grain.

Above: Switchgrass (Panicum virga-tum) is a native prairie grass oftenmentioned as a potential biofuel crop.In Utah, this perennial species occursprimarily in the Colorado River drain-age in the southeastern corner of thestate. Insets: two views of the spikeletofPanicum virgatum with two glumesand a single glume-like lemma. Illustra-tion by W. Fertig.


5/12

5


biodiesel)to replace them in hu-man and domestic livestock diets.

As a result, biofuels are beingtouted as an economic boon for thenorthern Great Plainsfarming sec-tor, and they might be in the short-term. However, it should be re-membered that the sodbusting ofthe early 20th Century was also a

short-term boom that resulted in along-term loss due to soil erosionand the cost of reclaiming the landto perennial grass. Biofuels mayseem like a good idea right now,

but the greenhouse gas emissions,fertilizer use, waste disposal, andfood security problems make large-scale biofuel production unsustain-able. Humans already appropriate40% of the earth's biological pro-ductivity. Further agricultural dis-turbance is untenable because

natural ecosystems provide criticalsupport for all life on the planet.Because of these problems, a shortperiod of biofuel glory will likely befollowed by a decline in demandand production as better, non-polluting energy sources come online. Marginal cropland will again

become idle and in need of restora-tion. We could be at the beginningof another round of sodbusting andloss of one of the country'smostprecious resources, native prairie.

It is possible that native grass-

lands could be used for biofuel pro-duction. David Tilman at the Uni-

versity of Minnesota proposes thatbiofuels derived from native grass-land hay could provide more en-ergy and greater CO2 reductionsthan corn-based ethanol or soy-

bean-derived biodiesel withoutfertilizer or significant changes infood security. His predictions are

based on studies showing that highdiversity grasslands sequestermore energy per acre than grass-

lands with one or two species. Fur-thermore, native grasslands storemore carbon in the soil than cropsthat require annual tillage. If thetechnology can be developed toextract the energy from native hay

we can produce biofuels with littleloss of native habitat and the ser-

vices it provides.Most ecologists familiar with the

issue agree that biofuels can neverbe expected to supply more than a

small part of our energy. Long-term solutions to humanity's fu-ture energy needs must be basedon two strategies: non-pollutingsources of energy such as solar and

wind, and conservation. We willhave to live in smaller houses anddrive smaller, more fuel-efficient

vehicles. We may have to drive

less, and we may have to turndown the thermostat and put on asweater. Native prairie is one ofthe most endangered ecosystemsin North America. Numerousplants and animals depend on thishabitat to persist. It is importantthat any legislation promoting bio-fuel production also carry provi-sions to protect native prairie fromsodbusting. Whatever role biofu-els play in our energy future, it isnot worth trading the loss of native

prairie ecosystems for a short-termeconomic surge.

Further reading:Crutzen, P.J. A.R. Mosier, K.A.

Smith, and W. Winiwarter. 2007.N2O release from agro-biofuelproduction negates global warm-ing reduction by replacing fossilfuels. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics Discussion 7:11191-11205.

www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net.

Economic Commission for Latin

America and the Caribbean andFood and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations. 2007. Op-portunities and risks arising fromthe use of bio-energy for food se-curity in Latin America. New York.

Giampietro, M., S. Uligiati, andD. Pimentel. 1997. Feasibility oflarge-scale biofuel production.

Bioscience 47:587-600.Government Accounting Office.

2007. Farm program paymentsare an important factor in land-

owners' decisions to convert grass-land to cropland. GAO-07-1054.Koh, L.P. 2007. Potential habi-

tat and biodiversity losses fromintensified biodiesel feedstock pro-duction. Conservation Biology21:1373-1375.

Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Leh-man. 2006. Carbon-negative bio-fuels from low-input high diversitygrassland biomass. Science314:1598-1600.

Latin America, particularly Brazil,Bolivia, Argentina, and Colombia,has potential to greatly expand itsagricultural frontier, but unfortu-nately this would come at the ex-pense of native forests and grass-lands, including some of the world's

biodiversity hotspots. A recent re-port by the United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) in-dicates that biofuel could provideeconomic opportunities in develop-ing countries if it resulted in an in-crease of small producers. However,the FAO notes that expansion in

biofuel production will most likelyresult in an increase in local cropprices and a transfer of income frompoor urban people to wealthy large-scale farmers.

Large-scale biofuel productionwill likely also have significant

ramifications for the northern GreatPlains of the U.S. and Canada, eventhough this region does not haveeither the climate or irrigation toraise corn, soybeans, or other highlyproductive biofuel crops. Much ofthiscropland is also consideredhighly erodable by the Natural Re-sources Conservation Service due tolow annual precipitation and poten-tial for wind erosion. A great deal ofhighly erodible land was plowed upnearly 100 years ago and then aban-doned during the dust bowl years

when the climate became hotter anddrier. Since then, farmers have con-tinued to sodbust native rangeland

whenever markets allowed for aprofit on dryland crops. These prof-its were always short-lived however,

because the topsoil was thin, andwheat markets are cyclical. TheGovernment Accounting Office re-ports that 25 million acres of grass-land were converted to other uses,primarily cropland, between 1985and 2003. Conversion continues

unabated across the northern plainsaccording to the Farm ServiceAgency, with over 100,000 acres ofgrassland converted to cropland inNorth Dakota since 2003, and over26,000 acres converted in Montanathe past three years.

Increased demand for biofuelcrops and the concomitant higherprices will spark an increased de-mand for wheat and other drylandcrops (such as Camelina sativa for


6/12

6


portion of the United States. Utahhas 168 species and varieties ofAs-tragalus, making it our largest ge-nus of flowering plants. Typicallythey are found in harsh, arid envi-ronments and often on unusual geo-logic formations. As a result of

Utah's stunning diversity of harsh,arid environments and vast array ofgeological formations, we havemany endemic and rareAstragali.

Common names of the genus in-clude milkvetch and locoweed. As-tragalus plants typically are lowgrowing and have dry pods. Somespecies are toxic at varying levels tograzing animals; some have knownmedicinal benefits to humans.

A Utah Endemic in Colorado?

On June 5, 1985, renowned leg-ume expert Rupert C. Barneby (whoat that time was about 74 years old)located anAstragalusalong the left

bank of the Dolores approximatelyfour miles upstream from Gateway(this would mean to the south or

below the town) growing on redgravelly banks. In May of 1986 on

yet another annual trek from hishome in New York City, Barnebycollected it again immediatelydownstream from Gateway ingravel-clay soils under sandstonecliffs at about 4430 feet. This wouldplace the location just above ornorth of Gateway (the Dolores Riverheads in a northwesterly directionfor roughly six miles from the Gate-

way area until it enters Utah andultimately flows into the ColoradoRiver near Fisher Towers). The fol-lowing month botanist Betsy Neelyfound the same plant south of Gate-

way (likely near Barnebys 1985 col-lection site), on the Cutler formationin dry washes with occasional juni-

pers at 4650 feet.In 1989, Barneby published the

nameAstragalus desperatus var.neeseae in volume 3B of theInter-mountain Flora series, naming it inhonor of Elizabeth Neese (hence theplant is sometimes referred to asElizabeth's milkvetch). Barnebyincluded the Gateway area plantsfrom Colorado with those fromHorseshoe Bend in Utah publishedpreviously under the name of

student, and the two became goodfriends. Barneby died in New Yorkin 2000.)

In view of how messy differenttaxonomic treatments can become,this example is relatively cut and dryin that both experts ultimately

agreed that the exact same speci-mens and populations represent theexact same something. From aconservation standpoint this is veryimportant, since taxonomic ques-tions often thwart effective conser-

vation actions. Taxonomic rank isimportant, since agencies make adistinction in the assessment of rankand status based on accepted taxo-nomic treatments. Thus a varietyreceives less priority than if treatedat the full rank of a species, species

in a large genus receive less atten-tion than those from a monotypic(one species) genus, and so forth.The error in this approach is thatfrequently varieties are raised to thelevel of a species (and genera aremoved back and forth between fami-lies) in a never ending quest to or-ganize our knowledge and under-standing of something that is com-plex in an imperfect system and theresult is that important ecotypescould be lost forever.

Horseshoe Milkvetch Hides Out in Colorado (continued from page 1)

Above: Horseshoe milkvetch(Astragalus equisolensis ). Illustrationby Kaye Thorne from Utah Endan-gered, Threatened, and Sensitive PlantField Guide.

ofAstragalus equisolensis*. Itwas not until the 3rd edition ofAUtah Flora (published in 2003)that Welsh recognized the Colo-rado distribution (disjunct and

below Gateway, Mesa Co., Colo.).Each expert had thus recognizedthe others name as a synonym,and both provided a somewhatsimilar argument in their respec-tive publications as to why it hadreceived the different treatment.(This disagreement however wasno doubt of an academic nature as

Welsh had great respect for Ba-rneby; some 17 years younger thanBarneby, he had initially contactedhim in 1958 while still a graduate

*The name Rimrock milkvetch is typi-cally used in conjunction with the fullspeciesA. desperatus, named by earlyUtah botanical explorer Marcus Joneswho was desperate to find an avail-able name in the crowded genus.


7/12

7


It is unclear what specimensWelsh based his Colorado localityinformation on in the 2003 flora.On February 24, 2006, Stan Welshdetermined that three out of fourspecimens sent to him for review bythe herbarium at the University ofColorado at Boulder earlier that year

wereAstragalus equisolensis. The

three specimens were the same twoBarneby collections taken fromGateway in 1985 and 1986, and theNeely collection from Gateway in1986. The fourth specimen was a1921 George Osterhout collection

which remains labeledA. despera-tus and which appears to have comefrom the vicinity of Colorado Na-tional Monument and Grand Junc-tion and not specifically the Gatewayarea.

Under either name the plant was

thought to be rare and was rankedby NatureServe (The nationwideumbrella organization of state natu-ral heritage programs) as criticallyimperiled (T1), as it remains to thisday. Welshs confirmation of theGateway specimens in early 2006led to renewed efforts to relocate itin Colorado. In late April 2006,Ellen Mayo, botanist/plant ecologist

with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service(FWS ) in Grand Junction, photo-graphed and collected anAstragalussouth of Gateway which in August of

2008 was confirmed by Drs. StanWelsh and Duane Atwood to beAs-tragalus equisolensis. After waitingfor some 20 years in relative obscu-rity, the plant had been re-discov-ered in Colorado, apparently aliveand well.

Encouraged by the Mayo find,botanist Peggy Lyon of the ColoradoNatural Heritage Program took upthe search for the Horseshoe milk-

vetch in 2007 and discovered a newlocation east of The Palisade (which

is north of Gateway) at 5,150 feet inan open pinyon-juniper blackbrushcommunity on May 20*. In 2008,Lyon located plants along the westside of the Dolores River for about15 miles (south of Gateway and

*seeRare Plant Survey of BLM Lands,Gateway, Colorado at http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/documents/2007/Gateway%20final%20report%20with%20edits.pdf

north/northwest to the Utah bor-der). She estimates that overallthere are six occurrences andabout 3,000 plants but expectsthere may be more. Plants werefound in blackbrush communities,often growing up through shrubs

but also out in the open. Thesouthernmost plants were growing

withArtemisia nova, typically onrocky convex slopes with reddishsoils.

The habitat description and lo-cality of the plants noted by Lyonin 2008 is remarkably consistent

with the mid-1980's specimens ofBarneby and Neely with an exten-sion of the known habitat both

below and above Gateway. (Thereis some natural confusion in thatup river is to the south anddown river is to the north of

Gateway.) It is of interest that BenFranklin noted the association ofArtemisia nova growing with theHorsehoe milkvetch in Utah in a1991 collection.

Legal Status of HorseshoeMilkvetch

Complicating the picture is thefact that the Horseshoe milkvetch

was a federal candidate speciesfrom September 27, 1985 untilSeptember 12, 2006, a period ofalmost 21 years. A candidate is a

plant or animal species that theFWS has sufficient information topropose as Threatened or Endan-gered under the Endangered Spe-cies Act (ESA). To be considered acandidate, an extensive amount ofinformation and documentation ofthreats has to be compiled similarto a listing proposal or petitionand published in theFederal Reg-ister.

The goals and purpose of thecandidate species program are

laudable and include the potentialfor cooperative actions and land-owner incentives to reverse thedecline of a species and avoid theneed for listing. While individualsor organizations may provide in-put to the FWS on species thatmight be considered as candidates,ultimately it is solely up to theagency to make the recommenda-tion. With respect to candidateplant species across the U.S., the

candidate species program forplants has for many years become,lamentably, dormant.

Candidate status confers no ac-tual legal protection, but by pastpolicy (and because the BLM has anobligation generally to help ensurethat their actions do not cause a spe-cies to need to be listed under the

ESA), the Utah BLM has automati-cally treated candidate species asthough they were included withintheir otherwise separately main-tained sensitive species list. Suchspecies have sometimes been treatedalmost as if they were formallylisted.

The Horseshoe milkvetch wasdropped as a candidate in 2006 forreasons that are controversial. Thelast and only survey for the Utahpopulation was in 1991 by Ben

Franklin (published in 1992). Thepopulation was then estimated at10,000. Neither a comprehensivesurvey nor monitoring took place

before or after that time. In theCandidate Notice of Review of9/12/06 removing the milkvetch, it

was indicated that there is no re-cent information indicating it hasdeclined, that the Colorado popu-lation is a recent discovery and thatthe only potential threat of sub-stance is from future energy devel-opment, but that does not threaten

the species through most of itsrange.

While it is true that the FWSwould not have possessed any infor-mation about the status of the Colo-rado plants in 2006 and that energydevelopment might not obliteratethe species from every last acre thatit occupies, the timing of removingHorseshoe milkvetch from the can-didate list was unfortunate. Withoutany ongoing monitoring/surveyingefforts, the FWS was relying on 15

year old information and was onlyassuming that the population inUtah had not declined based on an-ecdotal evidence. Even thoughAs-tragaliare thought to be evolution-arily capable of seeking out andadapting to harsh habitats, the on-going drought in the Uinta Basin haslikely added sudden and significantstresses on the plants and animals inthe region and this may very wellhave included the Horseshoe milk-


8/12

8


Above: The Palisade habitat of Horse-shoe milkvetch, north of Gateway, Colo-rado. Photo by Peggy Lyon, spring2007.

vetch and perhaps even more im-portantly, its pollinators. And, whilein 2007 there was a discovery of anew occurrence in Colorado, theexistence of plants from Coloradohad been well known since at least

1989.Worst of all, the decision oc-curred at a time when the Uinta Ba-sin is under siege from massive en-ergy development plans and actions.Impacts from oil and natural gasdevelopment have and continue tooccur in its habitat, and both sheepand cattle grazing are present per acomprehensive Ben Franklin reportreleased in 2005. Current impactsto the species have been mentionedon several occasions during the on-going Uinta Basin Rare Plant forum

discussions hosted by The NatureConservancy.

The most extensive recent impactrelates to Questars Greater Dead-man Bench Oil and Gas ProducingRegion project. A BLM Record ofDecision (ROD) signed in March of2008 refers to the fact that oil andgas development has been ongoing

within the project area for over 50years and allows for up to 1,020natural gas wells and 348 oil wells,

169 miles of new roads, and 193miles of natural gas pipelines witha total surface disturbance of 4,561acres (over a project size of some98,785 acres!). Also impacted bythe project are the federally listed

Sclerocactus brevisipinus andSclerocactus wetlandicus (federalanalyses still fail to uniformly treatthese as two separate species andinstead lump them together under

the nameSclerocactus glaucus which is now recognized as onlyoccurring in Colorado). SITLA(School Institution and TrustLands Assoc.), a quasi-state agencyand the largest state lands man-ager, has reportedly leased all of itsholdings in the area for oil and gasdevelopment. While some condi-tions of approval were included forthe rareSclerocactiin the ROD, noconditions were issued relative to

Astragalus equisolensis, despitethe fact that some 1600+ acres of

known habitat for the Horseshoemilkvetch occurs in the projectarea.

Conservation NeedsCurrentlyA. equisolensis re-

mains without any special status inUtah as the current political cli-mate (which likely is not limited tothe national level) is preventing itfrom being added to the Utah BLMsensitive species list. And Utah

Elizabeth Neese (1934-2008)

Elizabeth Neese, a founder of theUtah Native Plant Society and long-time Utah botanist with an interestin rare plants and floristics, died inher California home in El Cerrito on

August 9, 2008 at the age of 74.Neese received a doctorate from

Brigham Young University in 1981based on her study of the vascularflora of the Henry Mountains ofsoutheastern Utah. She worked forseveral years as a botanical consult-ant in Utah and other westernstates. Her studies in the UintaBasin and Dinosaur NationalMonument led to the discovery ofseveral new narrowly endemic spe-cies, including Rock hymenoxys(Hymenoxys lapidicola), BlueMountain penstemon (Penstemon

scariosusvar. cyanomontanus,Flowers penstemon (P. flowersii),Uinta yucca (Yucca harrimaniae

var. sterilis), and Horseshoe milk-vetch (Astragalus equisolensis). In1986, Sherel Goodrich and Neeseco-authored the Uinta Basin Flora,a wonderful regional flora pub-lished jointly by the US Forest Ser-

vice and BLM which is now, sadly,out of print.

In all, Dr. Neese authored or co-authored descriptions of at least 18different plant species from Utahand Nevada. Her fieldwork led tothe rediscovery of the Deseret milk-

vetch (Astragalus desereticus) nearBirdseye in 1981, after it had not

been seen for nearly seven decadesand was presumed extinct. Thisspecies is now listed as Threatenedunder the Endangered Species Act.

Neese gave a presentation onUtah wildflowers at the inauguralmeeting of the Utah Native PlantSociety in September 1978. Sheserved for several years as an offi-

cer of UNPS (including President in1983) and was co-editor of the Soci-ety newsletter in 1981 (before it

became known as theSego Lily).Members of the Salt Lake Chapterrecall the many field trips she led.

Elizabeth Neese is commemo-rated by several plant names, in-cluding a variety ofLepidium mon-tanum, two varieties ofAstragalus,and most recently, a newPhysarianamed by Stan Welsh in 2008. -W. Fertig


9/12

9


available by sending an e-mail [email protected].

Photographs by Ellen Mayo andPeggy Lyon are used by permission andremain their respective property.

Special thanks to the numerous indi-viduals who provided technical assis-tance and general information, and par-ticularly to Ellen Mayo, Peggy Lyon andBen Franklin.

The comments, opinions and errorsin this article should solely be attributedto its author.

has no state laws that offer anyrelief to actions on state lands.

We may never know how or whythe Horseshoe milkvetch came toexist in two separate, very isolatedareas some 115 air miles apart.But there is action that needs to betaken and information that needsto be obtained to ensure that these

rare and unique plants and theecosystems that support them con-tinue to survive. These actions at aminimum include:

1. The Utah BLM State Officeneeds to add the species to its sen-sitive species list as soon as possi-

ble and should consider new pro-cedures to avoid having to add

back a species that suffers an ESAstatus change (that is, removal orde-listing should result in an auto-matic addition to the BLM sensi-

tive species list until such time as aseparate review is made on themerits);

2. The FWS should in duecourse re-consider placing the spe-cies back on the candidate listsince significant information aboutthe Colorado occurrences is nowknown, and there are real and ex-isting threats particularly to theUtah population but also to theColorado locations that may stillindicate that this is a threatenedspecies;

3. A comprehensive survey ofthe Utah population should beconducted on a priority basis, andat least partially paid for by indus-try (and should occur over a periodof more than just a single year);

4. Permanent monitoring plotsshould be established in Utah andColorado;

5. Pollination studies need tobe conducted, particularly at theUtah site, which industry shouldhelp pay for;

6. Further surveys by both theColorado and Utah natural heri-tage programs including searchingthe Dolores River drainage be-tween the UT-CO border andFisher Towers need to be encour-aged (perhaps the species occursin Grand County, Utah?);

7. A soil analysis of the Utahand Colorado sites needs to beconducted (do the plants grow onthe same or different geologic for-mations?);

Further Weakening of the Endangered Species Act

On 11 August, 2008, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announcedadministrative changes in how the federal government will respond to po-tential conflicts between development projects and endangered species.

For the past 35 years, Section 7 of the act has established the groundrules by which federal agencies are regulated by the US Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under

Section 7, federal agencies proposing projects that might impact listed spe-cies on public or private lands are required to consult with scientists fromUSFWS and NMFS. Nearly 90% of consultations are informal in whichagencies and USFWS/NMFS typically find few impacts from a proposal oragree on minor modifications. Where conflicts are more significant,formal consultations take place, in which USFWS/NMFS scientists de-

velop comprehensive Biological Assessments of the proposal, its probableeffects on listed species, and potential alternatives.

The new rules announced by the government now make the initiation ofconsultation voluntary on the part of the proponent agency. Federal agen-cies can thus decide for themselves that their projects have no effect or onlymarginal impacts (cumulative effects need not be taken into account) with-out input or oversight from professional biologists without a stake in the

outcome. Should consultation be sought by a proponent, USFWS andNFMS now have only 60 days to respond. If the deadline is missed, theproject is automatically approved (not unlike the claim of a national pizzachain a few years ago that if not delivered in 30 minutes your pizza wasfree).

The new rules are subject to a 30 day comment period before they will befinalized in mid-September. (As of press time, however, there is no formalannouncement of the rule change on the USFWS Endangered Species pro-gram website, and no contact information is provided to direct comments.)

According to the government, these new changes do not require approvalby Congress. From 1995-2006, similar changes were proposed in legisla-tion introduced by former California Congressman Richard Pombo, butroutinely defeated.

In 2003 the government developed similar rules allowing agencies to

approve new pesticides and projects to reduce the risk of wildfire withoutrequiring consultation with government scientists about possible impactsto Threatened or Endangered species. The pesticide rule was later found to

be illegal and overturned, while litigation is on-going on whether wildfireprevention rules can circumvent the Endangered Species Act.

As with all administrative rules, the proposed changes can be overturnedas easily as they are implemented (they lack the same weight as law). Witha new administration taking power in January 2009, these rule changesmay not survive. In the meantime, it is up to diligent citizens to watch howagencies meet their obligations under the Endangered Species Act and todemand that scientific rigor and objectivity be restored to their rightfulplace in the execution of government. - W. Fertig

8. Last but not least, a DNAanalysis comparing the Utah andColorado plants should be con-ducted and also at least partiallypaid for by industry (how closelyrelated are the Utah and Coloradopopulations?).

Author's end notes:

Space constraints prohibit the in-clusion of numerous references uponwhich this article was based; these are


10/12

10


Based on this review, a few taxafrom previous editions were foundto be misidentified or no longer suf-ficiently distinct to warrant taxo-nomic recognition. Among thenewly departed areMollugo verticil-lata (still to be expected, but no

longer confirmed for the state),Erigeron awapensis (synonymizedunderE. abajoensis),Haplopappusacaulisvar. atwoodii(synonym-ized),Matricaria recutita (misid-entified),Physaria reediana (UTmaterial lumped withP. subumbel-lata),Physaria wardii(combined

withP. kingii, as also proposed inVol 2B of theIntermountain Flora),Collomia tinctoria (misidentified),and a half dozen others, mostly cul-tivated species.

One of the biggest changes in theFourth edition is the addition ofnearly 100 new cultivated species.Of the 4025 species addressed in the

book, just over 500 are non-nativeand non-naturalized plant taxa offarm and garden environments.Inclusion of cultivated species can

be useful, especially if one is facedwith identifying unfamiliar orna-mentals, but their presence in-creases the heft of an already large

book. A separate book, addressingall of the cultivated species of Utah,

might be useful in the future.It should be noted thatA Utah

Flora is a technical manual, repletewith botanical jargon and lacking asingle illustration (save for thecover). The book is intended forprofessionals or advanced amateurs.It is an important resource for any-one studying the states native orintroduced plants. We are ex-tremely fortunate to have a manualthat is so thorough and up to date.Walter Fertig

Anyone who has ever written apiece of technical non-fiction knowsonly too well that such works be-come outdated about as soon as theink is dry. This is especially true forthose who attempt to write keys anddescriptions of the flora of a state or

region. Keeping up with a constantflow of taxonomic name changes,newly described species, and thediscovery of new distribution re-cords that arise with each field sea-son can be enough to drive even thesanest systematist mad.

And yet, many persevere. Justfive years after the last edition hitthe presses, Drs. Stanley Welsh,Duane Atwood, Sherel Goodrich,and Larry Higgins have releasedAUtah Flora, Fourth Edition, Revised

in the summer of 2008 (Print Ser-vices, Brigham Young University,Provo, UT. $150.00 hardbound).

While it may seem unnecessary toreissue a flora so soon, new informa-tion on the composition and distri-

bution of the plants of Utah havealready made the 2003 edition outof date. By my count, 17 species or

varieties of vascular plants new toscience have been described fromUtah since 2003, and over 40 newnative or weedy species have beendocumented or reported for the

state. Dozens of name changes,many arising from the ongoing pub-lication of the Intermountain Floraand Flora of North America series,have also been made in the past few

years.Some readers may wince at the

seemingly constant changes in no-menclature, especially when it in-

volves beloved, familiar names. For-tunately, most of the revisions in theFourth edition are fairly minor. Few

will probably be troubled by chang-

ing the name ofAlyssum minus to

A. parviflorum, DelphiniumandersoniitoD. scaposum(correcting a problem in whichname has priority),Malvastrumexile toEremalche exile, or the 30or so similar changes. Perhaps the

biggest change comes to some of

the common varieties ofChry-sothamnus nauseosus, with vars.consimilis and gnaphalodes now

var. oreophilus and var. hololeu-cus, respectively. Nomenclaturalchanges have claimed two generaof umbels, asAletes and Oreoxisare now subsumed under Cymop-terus.

Overall, the taxonomic philoso-phy of theFlora remains fairlyconservative. From the use ofolder family names (such as Com-

positae and Cruciferae over As-teraceae and Brassicaceae) tomaintenance of traditional genericconcepts ofAster, Chrysotham-nus, orArabis, the authors ofAUtah Flora have resisted some ofthe major revisions seen in otherrecent floras. In many cases theconservative approach is justifiableuntil conflicting lines of evidenceare resolved through additionalresearch. For those unsatisfied

with the traditional approach, theauthors have done a good job of

combing the newer literature andincluding relevant synonymy.

Welsh and colleagues frequentlyinclude brief (and often entertain-ing) commentary on taxonomicand other issues in a short para-graph at the end of each speciesaccount.

In the course of revising theFlora, Welsh and his co-authors re-examined tens of thousands ofherbarium specimens from thecollections at Brigham Young Uni-

versity (the largest in the state).

Botanists Bookshelf:A Utah Flora, Fourth Edition, Revised

Noteworthy Discoveries fromA Utah Flora, Fourth Edition (2008)

The following is an annotated listof newly described species(indicated by *) or new state recordsfor the flora of Utah that were notpreviously included in the 3rd edi-tion ofA Utah Flora published in2003. Cultivated (but not natural-ized) species are excluded.

AmaranthaceaeAlternanthera caracasana, exotic,

Washington Co.,Higgins 27020.

CampanulaceaeNemacladus longiflorusvar. breviflo-

rus, native, Kane Co.,Fertig &Kneller 20412.

CaryophyllaceaeSilene nachlingerae, native, Beaver Co.,

Goodrich 19803.

ChenopodiaceaeChenopodium chenopodioides, native,

Davis, Garfield, Iron, San Pete, &Sevier Cos, formerly included in C.capitatum.


11/12

11


Compositae (Asteraceae)Artemisia tridentatavar.parishii, na-

tive, cited for southern UT inFlora ofNorth America Vol 19, 2006 by LeilaShultz.

Bahia absinthifolia , native, WashingtonCo.,Higgins 25056.

Coreopsis tinctoria, exotic, Kane Co.,Fertig 22861.

*Crepis runcinatavar. aculeolata, na-

tive, Kane Co., Ward 606 (holotype),Welsh, Atwood, & Higgins 27523.

*Erigeron vagusvar. madsenii, native,Garfield, Iron, and Kane Cos.,Madsen1025(holotype)

Erigeron watsonii, native, cited for UtahinFlora of North AmericaVol 20 byGuy Nesom.

Gaillardia pulchella, native to SW USA,but apparently introduced in Emery,Grand, San Pete, Summit, Tooele,Utah, & Washington Cos., previouslyincluded in G. aristata.

Haplopappus racemosusvar. sessiliflo-rus, native, Millard Co., Welsh, Taylor,

& Thorne 14514, previously included invar.paniculatus.

Helianthus pumilus, native to WY & CO,apparently exotic in Kane Co, UT,Fertig 20563.

Leontodon nudicaulis, exotic, Washing-ton Co.,Higgins 25874.

*Senecio bairdii, native, Box Elder Co.,Baird 3411 (holotype).

*Thelesperma subnudumvar. maliterri-mum, native, Duchesne & Uintah Cos.,Goodrich & Huber 25174 (holotype)

*Townsendia goodrichii, native, Duch-esne & Uintah Cos., Goodrich 26977(holotype).

CrassulaceaeSedum sediforme, exotic, San Juan

Co., Tuhy 3834.

Cruciferae (Brassicaceae)Alyssum murale, exotic, cited for We-

ber Co. inIntermountain Flora Vol,2B, 2005 by Noel Holmgren.

Descurainia pinnatavar.paradisa,native, Box Elder Co., Thorne 10587.

Draba paysoniivar. treleasii, native,cited for Tooele C0. inIntermoun-tain Flora Vol, 2B, 2005 by NoelHolmgren.

Lepidium ramosissimum, native, IronCo., Goodding 1012.

*Physaria neeseae, native, Garfield &Washington Cos.,Neese 5127(holotype).

Phoenocaulis cheiranthoides, native,cited for NW Utah inIntermountainFlora Vol, 2B, 2005 by Noel Holm-gren.

Subularia aquatic, native, DuchesneCo.,Maguire et al. 4340.

Thelypodium wrightii, native, Gar-field, Kane, and Washington Cos.,

.

Onagraceae*Camissonia bolanderi, native, Emery

Co.,Atwood & Furniss 31354(holotype).

Camissonia walkerivar. tortilis, native,Beaver, Box Elder, Juab, Millard,Sevier, Tooele, & Washington Cos.,previously included in var. walkeri.

Oenothera pallidavar. latifolia, native,cited for Cache, Salt Lake, Summit,

and Tooele Cos inIntermountainFlora Vol, 3A, 1997 by Cronquist,Holmgren, & Holmgren.

PolemoniaceaePhlox albomarginata, native, Rich Co.,

Franklin (# not cited)

PolygonaceaeChorizanthe watsonii, native, Box Elder

& Kane Cos.,Franklin 7495.Eriogonum acaule, native, Rich Co.,

Moon & Moon 1620.Eriogonum brevicaulevar. bannock-

ense, native, Box Elder & Rich Cos.

Erigonum brevicaulevar. mitophyllum,native, Sevier Co.,Reveal & Broome8548 (holotype ofE. mitophyllum,described by James Reveal inFlora ofNorth America Vol. 5, 2005).

Eriogonum corymbosumvar. heilii,native, Wayne Co., Reveal et al. 8543(holotype, described by James RevealinFlora of North America Vol. 5,2005), previously included withinvar. revealianum.

Koenigia islandica, native, DuchesneCo., Goodrich et al. 26308.

Polygonum pensylvanicum, native?,Kane, Utah, and Washington Cos.

Ranunculaceae*Aquilegia holmgrenii, native, GarfieldCo., Cottam 4290 (holotype), formerlyincluded withinA. elegantula.

Rosaceae*Potentilla diversifoliavar. madsenii,

native, Kane Co.,Madsen 1230(holotype).

*Potentilla gracilisvar. hippianoides,native, Beaver, Daggett, Duchesne,Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab,Kane., Piute, San Juan, Summit, Uin-tah, & Wayne Cos., Welsh 474

(holotype)Potentilla recta, exotic, San Juan, Uin-

tah, & Weber Cos.

Umbelliferae (Apiaceae)Bupleurum americanum, native, Rich

Co.,Moon & Moon 468.*Cymopterus crawfordensis, native,

Rich Co., Moon & Moon 703(holotype).

formerly included in T. laxiflorum.

EuphorbiaceaeChamaesyce serpens, native to SE

USA but exotic in Washington Co.,UT,Higgins 23347.

Guttiferae (Hypericaceae or Clusi-aceae)

Hypericum perforatum, exotic, Box

Elder, Cache, Davis, and Juab Cos.

FabaceaeAstragalus calycosusvar. monophyl-

lidus, native, Sevier Co.,Neese15649.

*Astragalus lentiginosusvar. neg-undo, native, Box Elder & MillardCos., Thorne 10584.

Lotus tomentellus, native, WashingtonCo.,Neese 12992.

*Trifolium andinumvar. canone, na-tive, Millard Co., Goodrich 15377(holotype).

*Trifolium andinumvar. navajoense,

native, San Juan Co., Clifford 95-809 (holotype).

*Trifolium andinumvar. wahwahen-sis, native, Beaver Co.,Kass & Welsh3627(holotype).

*Vicia americanavar. lathyroides,native, Millard Co., Tilley 339(holotype).

Gramineae (Poaceae)Eriochloa gracilis, exotic, Washington

Co.,Higgins 26859.

HydrocharitaceaeElodea densa, exotic, Sevier Co.,

Thorne et al. 4158.

Liliaceae*Calochortus ciscoensis, native,

Duchesne, Grand, & Uintah Cos.,Welsh & Welsh 28943 (holotype).

LoasaceaeMentzelia decapetala, native, Box

Elder & Cache Cos.,Holmgren &Holmgren 15132.

MalvaceaeEremalche rotundifolia , native, Wash-

ington Co.,Atwood, Furniss, &

Spencerin 1997.Sphaeralcea digitata, native, San Juan

Co.,Rydberg & Garrett 9907.

Nyctaginaceae*Abronia fragransvar. harrisii, na-

tive, Emery Co.,Harris 364.Boerhavia wrightii, native, cited for

southern UT inFlora of NorthAmerica Vol 4, 2003 by RichardSpellenberg.


12/12

12



PO Box 520041

Salt Lake City, UT 84152-0041

Return Service Requested

Utah Native Plant Society Membership

__ New Member __ Renewal__ Gift Membership

Membership Category __ Student $9.00 __ Senior $12.00

__ Individual $15.00 __ Household $25.00 __ Sustaining $40.00 __ Supporting Organization $55.00 __ Corporate $500.00 __ Lifetime $250.00

Mailing___ US Mail___ Electronic

Name _________________________________Street _________________________________City ______________________ State ________Zip ___________Email ___________________

Chapter _______________________________

__ Please send a complimentary copy of the Sego Lilyto the above individual.

Please enclose a check, payable to Utah Native PlantSociety and send to:

Utah Native Plant SocietyPO Box 520041Salt Lake City, UT 84152-0041

Join or renew on-line at unps.org

Want to see theSego Lily in color? Or read late breaking UNPS news and find links to otherbotanical websites? Or buy wildflower posters, cds, and other neat stuff at the UNPS store? Go

to unps.org!

September-October 2008 Sego Lily Newsletter, Utah Native Plant Society

Documents

Transcript of September-October 2008 Sego Lily Newsletter, Utah Native Plant Society